HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1982/10/13 AGENDA
City Planning Co~ission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, October 13, 1982 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of September 22, 1982
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map for
Telegraph Canyon Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-32 -
Telegraph Canyon, Ltd.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-83-7 - Conditional use permit to establish used car
dealership at 804 Broadway in the C-T zone - Ranver Corp.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-83-B - Consideration of rezoning 6.28 acres at East "J"
Street and 1-805 from R-l, P-C and R-1-H to R-l-P(4) or
R-1-H - Dr. Harold Weinberger
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
To: City Planning Commission
From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning
Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission
Meeting of October 13, 1982
1. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map for
Telegraph CanNon Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-32 -
Telegraph CanNon, Ltd.
A. BACKGROUND
On October 14, 1980 the City Council approved the tentative map for Telegraph
Canyon Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-32, for the conversion of a 183 unit apartment
complex on 8.94 acres located at the northeast'corner of Crest Drive and Telegraph
Canyon Road into a two lot condominium project. The tentative map is scheduled
to expire on October 14, 1982 and the developer has requested a one year extension.
B. RECO~ENDATION
Adopt a motion approving the one year extension of the tentative subdivision map
for Telegraph Canyon Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-32. The map will then expire
on October 14, 1983.
C. DISCUSSION
There have been no significant changes in the immediate vicinity which affect the
original conditions or findings of approval. In light of the current economic
situation, the request for a one year extension is reasonable and approval justi-
fiable
City Planning Commissik
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982 Page 2
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-83-7; request to establish
a used car dealership at 804 Broadway - Ranver Corp.
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit in
order to establish a used car dealership at 804 Broadway in the C-T zone.
2. An Initial Study, IS-83-6, of possible adverse environmental impacts
of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on
September 30, 1982. The Committee concluded that there would be no
significant environmetal effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration
be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-6.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-83-7, to establish a used car dealership at
804 Broadway subject to the following conditions:
a. Landscaping shall be provided on all sides of the property and
adjacent to any structures. Specific details on the location
and type of planting shall be as determined by the City's
Landscape Architect.
b. All driveways and curb openings shall be aligned with the
proposed internal circulation.
c. The project shall be subject to site plan and architectural
review, including signs, by the Zoning Administrator prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
d. All proposed lighting shall be designed and oriented in such a
manner as to avoid any glare into residential areas.
e. The two parcels shall be consolidated into one parcel prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
North C-T Restaurant, grocery store, & auto repair
South C-T Used car lot
East C-T New car dealership
West R-2 Duplexes
City Planning Con,hiss~-- -~
Agenda Items. for Meet. ~ of October 13, 1982 Page 3
2. Existing site characteristics.
The project site consists of two parcels of land located at the southwest
corner of Broadway and "K" Street. The parcels contain a total area of 22,500
sq. ft. and a combined frontage of 125 feet along Broadway and 180 feet along
"K" Street. The property is a former tire sales/service station site which is
developed with a masonry structure near Broadway and pump islands along both
streets. There are two driveways on Broadway and one driveway on "K" STreet
located near the intersection. The rear of the property is vacant. The
street improvements (curb, gutters and sidewalk) have not been installed along
the "K" Street frontage.
3. Proposed use.
The applicant intends to use the property for a used car lot. The existing
building will be removed and replaced with a single story 730 sq. ft. (14.5' X
49.5') structure to be constructed on the rear one third of the property and
adjacent to the southerly property line. The pump island on Broadway will be
removed; however, the pump island on "K" Street will remain to service the
used cars. The northerly driveway on Broadway will be removed and a second
driveway installed west of the existing driveway on "K" Street. The applicant
will be required to install all of the street improvements on "K" Street.
Landscaping is proposed along both street frontages and within the 13 foot
parkway on "K" Street. A 6 foot high wall will be erected along the westerly
property line as required by Code. No sign program has been submitted;
however, a freestanding sign is proposed at the intersection of Broadway &
"K" Street.
4. Similar establishments.
There are a number of new and used car dealerships along Broadway between "I"
and "L" Streets. The properties immediately to the south and east are used
and new car lots respectively.
D. ANALYSIS
1. The main purpose of the conditional use permit is to determine if the
proposed use is necessary at the particular location and if it is compatible
with the adjacent uses as to well as establish any conditions as may be deemed
necessary.
2. In this instance, the proposed use will located in an area where there are
a number of similar uses already established and will expand that particular
activity. Being located on a corner and adjacent to another used car lot, the
use will not disrupt the continuity of any retail commercial area. The
conditions of approval will ensure that the use will not adversely affect the
adjoining residential area.
3. The site plan should be considered schematic at this point since
additional landscaping and a relocation of curb openings is needed to satisfy
planning and engineering standards. In addition, the building design needs
professional design attention.
City Planning Commissi. Page 4
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982
E. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed use will provide an expanded choice of patronage within
an area which presently provides this service.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The proposed use is oriented away from the residential uses to the
west and will complete the street improvements along "K" Street.
Therefore the use will not adversely affect adjacent uses or
properties.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The applicant will construct a zoning wall along the westerly
property 1 i ne in accordance with establ i shed regulations.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The use is in keeping with the Thoroughfare Commercial designation
for this area on the General Plan.
ML: dl
WPC O151P/OO15Z
M I T I G A T E I'~ --'
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Ranver Corp. Used Car Sales
PROJECT LOCATION: 804 Broadway
PROJECT APPLICANT: Ranver Corp.,
804 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA 92010
CASE NO. IS-83-6 DATE: September 30, 1982
A. Project Setting
The project site consists of a 22,500 sq. ft. lot located at the southwest
corner of Broadway and K Street. The lot presently contains a 1500 sq. ft.
commercial structure and gasoline pumps. Because of the developed nature of the
site, there are no biological, archaeological, or historical resources present.
Adjacent land uses consist of two duplexes located to the west, a used car
lot to the south, K Street and retail commercial uses to the north, and Broadway
and a new car showroom to the east of the site.
B. Project Description
The project involves construction of an 800 sq. ft. sales office and appro-
priate landscaping for the operation of a used car lot. The applicant proposes to
retain the existing gasoline pumps presently located on the site and to restrict
their use from public operation.
C. Compatibility with zoning and plans
The proposed land use will require approval of a conditional use permit by
the Planning Commission and is considered compatible with the "Thoroughfare Commercial"
land use designation of the General Plan.
D. Identification of environmental effects
Aesthetics
The proposed project will be located immediately east of two duplex structures.
The rear yard areas of these structures back up to the project. The site plan
proposes a 6 foot high zoning wall and no exterior lighting adjacent to the property
line. Since this area is subject to vehicle parking, the possibility of future
lighting installation raises the question of excess glare on residential areas. If
lighting is installed adjacent to the westerly property line it should be shielded to
avoid excess glare.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant environmental effects
All future security or parking lot lighting shall be shielded from the residen-
tial area west of the site.
city of chula vista planning department l~,~"~
environmental reYiew section
IS-83-6
Page 2
F. Findings of insignificant impact
1. The project will not adversely affect any natural or manmade environmental
features present in the project setting, nor will the project generate any
pollutants that will have the potential to significantly degrade the quality
of the environment or curtail the range of the environmental which supports
the biosystem.
2. The project is in conformance with the long range goals of the City of
Chula Vista and will not, therefore, attain short term to the disadvantage
of long term goals.
3. No impacts are anticipate to occur which could interact to create a substan-
tial cumulative effect on the environment.
4. The project will not cause the emission of any harmful substance or noise
which could prove a hazard to the health or welfare of human beings.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and organizations:
City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner
Bill Harshman, Senior Engineer
Tom Dyke, Plan Checker
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner
Applicant's Designer David Calvani
2. Documents:
Chula Vista Municipal Code
The Initial St u]',.' ,~!>['~l [c ~tion and ~v,]luation forms documenting the
findin~;s o[ no r;,,~nLfLcant impact are on file and available for
publLc review .~t th~ C]~uI,~ Vista Ulanninq Dept., 276 4th Avenue,
Chu[a Vi~;ta, CA
E~IVI~TAL F~VIEI; COO~I:JATOR
city of chula vista planning department
environmental ~view section
CAR
· ' *' ~*'-'
~A~
NEW' ~a USED
AIJ'~O DEALER
I
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982 Page 5
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-83-B - Consideration of rezoning 6.28 acres at East "J"
Street and 1-805 from R-l, P-C and R-1-H to R-l-P(41 or
R-1-H - Dr. Harold Weinberger
A. BACKGROUND
1. In November, 1981 the City Council unanimously denied a zone change
application submitted by the applicant to zone the property at 1-805 and East "J"
Street to R-1-P at a density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre. The Council then
referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of zoning
the property R-1-H.
2. In January, 1982 the applicant requested and was granted, by the Director
of Planning, a 90 day delay on the consideration of the R-1-H zoning in order that
he could review the design of the project and meet with the residents of the area
to discuss possible solutions and alternatives. Subsequent contact in May, 1982,
by the Director of Planning, indicated that the applicant still desired to proceed
with the project but had not yet met with the residents. The applicant's attempts
to meet with the residents were not successful and the applicant chose to file a
new application.
3. On September 16, 1982 the property owner filed a new application requesting
rezoning of the property to R-l-P(4) (single family residential subject to the
Precise Plan Modifying District at a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre).
4. On September 23, 1982 the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the
Environmental Impact Report, EIR-81-5, and detemined that the information
contained in the EIR adequately addresses the proposed project and recommended that
the EIR be recertified.
B. RECO~)ENDATION
1. Recertify that EIR-81-5 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and
the information contained therein has been considered in the review of the proposed
project.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "F" of this report, adopt a ~
motion recommending that the City Council approve a change of zone for 6.28 acres
located at the northwest quadrant of East "J" Street and 1-805 from R-l, R-1-H and
P-C to R-l-P(4) subject to the following precise plan development standards:
a. Any private road system shall have a minimum paved travel width of
24 feet and a 5 foot wide sidewalk on one side. The entry from the
public street shall be clearly identified as private and shall be
treated with decorative textured paving.
b. Any development shall be subject to Design Review Committee approval,
who shall consider retention of the view shed in consideration of
building design and setbacks along East "J" Street.
c. All private roads, parking areas and open space areas shall be held
in common ownership and maintained by a homeowners association.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982 Page 6
d. The City of Chula Vista shall be made a party to the Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which shall include but not be
limited to the prohibition against the conversion of any garages or
carports into living space.
e. All structures shall maintain a minimum 25 foot setback from East "J"
Street.
f. No structures shall be located closer than § feet from the back of
sidewalk or from the right-of-way line of the private street.
g. No structure shall exceed one and one-half stories or 18 feet above
the level of the public or private street serving the unit; in addition,
units located on the easterly ridge of the canyon shall not project
above the elevation of East "J" Street by more than lO feet.
h. If the units are served by a private street system, a guest parking
ratio of one half space per unit shall be provided on site, independent
of individual driveways.
i. All dwelling units, regardless of type, shall be designed to meet
the State of California Administrative Code Title 25 noise insulation
standard for a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA. All exterior
private open space areas exposed to approximately 65 dBA level or
higher shall be provided with a line-of-sight barrier protection.
j. Any development plan approval will require than an open space lot
with an access easement to the San Diego formation soils be provided
for qualified paleontologists to gain access and conduct necessary
excavations at some future date.
k. No more than two units may be attached with a minimum separation
between structures of 15 feet.
1. Each unit shall have a minimum of 200 sq. ft. of private open space
in the form of patios and/or balconies. No patio located in front of
the unit shall be counted toward this requirement unless it is
located a minimum of lO feet from any right-of-way or sidewalk.
m. Access from the subject property to East "J" Street shall be limited
to one point near the west end of the project.
n. No recreational vehicles and boats may be parked on site unless a
common area is provided specifically for that purpose.
o. The deep ravine bisecting the property shall be preserved to the
extent that approximately 50% of the total site shall be left
undisturbed in a natural condition; however, additional landscaping
may be required with approval of development plans.
3. Alternative recommendation: Adopt a motion recommending rezoning the
~R-1 and P-C areas to R-l-H.
City Planning Commissar,,
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982 Page 7
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
Northeast Unzoned 1-805 freeway
South R-1 Single family detached dwellings
West R-1 Single family detached dwellings
2. Existing site characteristics.
The triangular shaped property consists of four vacant parcels on the north
side of East "J" Street and is bounded by ~he 1-805 freeway on the northeast side.
Topographically, the property is a deep ravine with steep slopes along the westerly
and southerly sides. The ravine runs diagonally from the southwest corner of
the property toward the freeway in a northeasterly direction. Elevations range
from a high of slightly more than 270 feet to a low of approximately 170 feet, a
difference of lO0 feet. The average natural slope over the entire site is approxi-
mately 30 per cent. The area under consideration contains 6.03 acres with an addi-
tional 0.25 acres presently within the right-of-way of East "J" Street which the
applicant has requested be vacated.
3. Existing zoning.
a. The easterly 1.45 acres (including the proposed street vacation) is
zoned R-1-H and has been subdivided into three lots (Parcel Map 54-79) with a
dedicated open space easement on ~ore than 50% of the property so that not more
than 3 units could be constructed on the 3 lots. The remainin§ area is zoned R-1
and P-Cwith the northerly 265 feet (approximately 0.5 acre) zoned R-1. The entire
project area was a part of the larger P-C zoned area (El Rancho del Rey) east of
1-805 and has been separated by the construction of the freeway.
4. Density.
a. No specific residential density has been established for the P-C
zoned area (approximately 4.3 acres) by either the approved E1 Rancho del Rey
General Development Plan or the Specific Plan which did not include the subject
property. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Residen-
tial at a density of 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre.
b. The attachment of the Precise Plan Modifying District enables the City
to establish a maximum density on the property regardless of the density permitted
by the underlying zone. In this instance, the applicant is requesting that the
R-1 density be reduced from 6.2 units per acre to 4.0 units which would limit the
maximum number of units to 25 instead of 39 units under R-1 zoning. The following
table reflects the maximum number of units under different density factors:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982 Page 8
Density (DU's/Acre) Maximum Number of Units
4.0 25
3.9 24
3.7 to 3.8 23
3.5 to 3.6 22
3.4 21
3.2 to 3.3 20
3.1 19
2.9 to 3.0 18
2.5 15
2.0 12
5. Hillside Modifying District.
The density and amount of grading allowed on land regulated by the Hillside
Modifying District is governed by a sliding scale predicated on the average natural
slope of the property. The higher the average natural slope (steepness and amount
of slope), the less grading and the lower number of units allowed on the property.
The subject property has an average natural slope of 30 per cent. Based on this
percentage, if the Hillside District is attached to the property, 90 per cent of
the property would have to be left ungraded (natural) and the density reduced to
approximately 7 per cent of the maximum number of units allowed by the underlying
zone. For example, if the property were one parcel and zoned R-l-H, the maximum
number of units would be reduced to two and only 0,63 acres could be graded. Under
conventional R-1 zoning, 39 units would be the maximum number allowed and there
would be no limit on grading, except that which may be limited through the
subdivision and environmental review process. (The present number of lots would
allow 5 units.)
6. Proposed development.
At the time of this writing, no specific development proposal has been
submitted by the applicant to support the density requested. However, the
applicant has submitted a schematic bulk plan showing how 25 units served by a
private street system could fit on this site.
D. ANALYSIS
l. General Plan consistency.
The proposed R-l-P(4) zoning is consistent with and at the lower end of the
Medium Density Residential range of 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. Any density
at less than 4 units per acre would also be considered consistent.
2. Issues.
The previous rezoning request raised a number of issues regarding the develop-
ment of the property. Those issues were:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982 Page 9
a. Traffic;
b. Compatibility of the proposed development wi th the adjacent single
family detached character of the area;
c. Density;
d. View obstruction;
e. Applicability of the Hillside Modifying District on relatively small
parcels of land;
f. The development of canyon areas; and
g. The use of "P" Precise Plan Modifying District for the proposed type
of development.
These issues are still present with the proposed rezoning application and should
be addressed.
3. Traffic.
Any development on the subject property would icnrease the amount of traffic
in the area, thus, the greater the number of units, the more traffic. The
original development proposal was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer who determined
that the sight distance at the proposed intersection of the private street with
East "J" Street at the southeast corner of the property was safe. In addition, the
design capacity of East "J" Street could easily accomnodate the increase in
traffic (estimated at just over 200 trips per day). The projected increase in
noise and potential traffic mishaps are well within the acceptable range of
established traffic safety standards.
4. Compatibility.
Single family detached homes on the property would, of course, be compatible
with the adjoining areas. In recent years the use of cluster housing and attached
housing has been commonplace within traditional R-1 areas. A good example is the
Windsor Heights development at the north end of Melrose Avenue at Sheffield Court
in this same general vicinity. Other examples, such as Parkview Villas and
Wind~o~Views, developed along Telegraph Canyon Road using duplex units. These
development concepts allow for better, more efficient use of open space, the
Windsor Heights development was developed on an area which is characterized by
steep slopes and a canyon traversing the property. To ensure compatibility, the
development would be controlled through design review.
The development of the property will require the completion of the street
improvements along the north side of East "J" Street. The subject property has
approximately 680 feet of street frontage. The cost of the improvements is
proportionately less per unit as the density increases making development more
economical and feasible. Onsite improvements also become proportionately less,
although onsite improvements for this site will be increased because direct access
of units onto "J" Street should be discouraged.
5. Density.
This is probably the most difficult issue to address because there is no
correct or incorrect number. Attaching the Hillside District to the property
would keep the density very low, however, it is likely to make it very impractical
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982 Page l0
to develop. I believe that the original plan submitted by the applicant shows
that the property can be developed in a manner compatible with the surrounding
single family homes and retain its basic land form at a density greater than the
R-1-H zone would permit. Without a specific plan proposal, the actual number of
units is speculative. Even so, I believe that a density of 4 units per acre
(25 units maximum) would permit the development of the property which would be
compatible with the area while maintaining the integrity of the land form,
6. View obstruction.
The original development proposal minimized the view obstruction from existing
residents located on the south side of "J" Street by placing the units below the
level of the public street with only a small portion of the units extending
above the level of the street. Under R-1-H zoning there would be no control
over visual obstruction by units constructed along East "J" Street. The attach-
ment of the "P" Modifying District allows for site and architectural review to
consider view obstruction.
7. Application of the Hillside District.
The Hillside Modifying District was created to preserve hillside areas and
blend development to protect prominent topographic features in the city's eastern
development. Attaching the Hillside District to 6 acres of canyon area abutting
the 1-805 freeway, while the adjacent residential areas are fully graded and
developed at an average of 4½ dwelling units per acre does not, in my opinion,
represent good zoning practice.
The Hillside Ordinance was developed over ten years ago and represents a
very mechanical mathematical density solution to a complex design issue. The
hillside controls work better as policy documents rather than ordinances which
tend to be over restrictive and inflexible. Land can and should be developed by
the use of precise plans which address not only land form preservation and grading
but building design and form as well.
The staff is offering the R-1-H zone as an alternative recommendation if the
Planning Commission desires to restrict grading to l0 per cent of the site and
limit the density to 5 single family dwellings. The Hillside zoning classification
would preserve a higher percentage of the canyon. Development of the single
family houses would logically occur adjacent to "J" Street.
8. Applicability of the Precise Plan District.
The Precise Plan Modifying District is without a doubt one of the more versatile
tools contained in the zoning ordinance. It has been used to establish development
standards to meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan and to allow properties
to develop in unique and innovativewa~s not possible with conventional zoning and
other development procedures such as the Planned Unit Development process. It has
the ability to be more or less restrictive and provides flexibility when needed.
In this particular case, the Precise Plan District can limit the density, preserve
views, retain natural open spaces, and provide variation in structure type. It
can also establish access points, parking standards, including ~he paving materials
for streets, driveways and sidewalks. In essence, it can accomplish all that the
Hillside District can and more. If development is to be seriously considered on
the subject property, the Precise Plan Modifying District is the most appropriate
tool to use.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of October 13, 1982 Page ll
9. Development of canyon areas.
The preservation of canyon areas is highly desirable. Canyons provide visual
relief, maintain the land form integrity, and provide a physical separation of
develppmehts. However, certain problems are also associated with canyons; for
example, they can become fire hazards being blighted with trash and dumpings.
Residents in the area have also stated that this canyon has been used as a
pick-up or drop-off area for illegal aliens. The proposed density and develop-
ment guidelines would allow development to occur while preserving a large percent-
age of the canyon in its natural state as well as the basic land form for the
entire 6+ acres.
E. CONCLUSION
1. Given the size of the subject property, the location, its relationship to
other conventional developments in the area, its topography and configuration, it
is my opinion that the Hillside District is too restrictive to permit reasonable
use of the property and should not be applied. The intent of the Hillside standards
can be met by the application of the Precise Plan Modifying District which will
also permit the establishment of development standards to ensure that any proposed
development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood, preserve views
and permit flexibility of design.
2. A development plan for 25 units on the developable portion of the land
would be consistent with density of adjacent properties and permit the construction
of duplex type units in a cluster pattern to preserve the canyon.
F. FINDINGS
The "P" Modifying District may be applied to areas within the city only when one
or more of the following circumstances is evident:
1. ~he subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property
is located, is unique by virtue of topography, £eological characteristics, access,
configuration, traffic circulation, or sc~e social or historic situation requiring
special handling of the d~velopment on a precise plan basis.
The subject property is of unusual configuration and has' an average natural
slope of 30%. Access to "J" Street should be limited to one location to
minimize traffic conflicts.
2. ~ basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner
and/or the city appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient
and proper relationship among the u~es allowed in the adjacent zones.
The attachment of the "P" District will limit the density on the property
to four dwelling units per acre and will provide the flexibility needed to
meet the intent of the Hillside District and effectively develop the property
in a manner compatible with the adjacent single family neighborhood.
CT.
STREET \,,
\